The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime; statements of a deceased cannot be used to implicate others in unrelated deaths.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. The criminal appeal No. 2109 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.04.2016 passed by District Judge, Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 525 of 2013 whereby the learned District Judge, Rampur has convicted the accused appellants Smt. Gangotri Devi and Madan Lal for the offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused appellants had to further suffer six months additional imprisonment. They were further convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/-each. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused appellants had to further undergo additional imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 2110 of 2016 was filed by the appellant Daulat Ram against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2016 passed by learned District Judge, Rampur in S.T. No. 42 of 2015 (State v. Daulat Ram) and convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced him for ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In the case of default, the accused appellant had to further suffer six months additional imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused appellant had to further undergo an additional imprisonment for a period of two years.

3. Both the Sessions Trials i.e. S.T. No. 525 of 2013 and S.T. No. 42 of 2015 arose from the Case Crime No. 217 of 2013 under Section 307, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Milak, District Rampur. As both the Sessions Trials arose from the same Crime number i.e. Case Crime No. 217 of 2013, they were tried together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 19.04.2016 by District Judge, Rampur.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that the informant namely Prabhu Dayal S/o Natthu Lal submitted a written complaint dated 15.05.2013 paper no. 50Ka (Ex. K-1) on which a First Information Report paper no. 52Ka (Ex. Ka-3) was registered in Case Crime No. 217 of 2013, under Section 307, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Milak, District Rampur.

5. As per the First Information Report, the informant stated that the marriage of the informant was settled with one Kamla D/o Sher Singh. After the settlement of marriage, father of Kamla expired. It has been further stated that mother of Kamla had died earlier and in the family of Kamla there was a younger sister named Suman and one elder brother by the name of Bablu.

6. Rahul s/o Bablu and Smt. Gangotri, mother of Rahul used to quarrel with Kamla and Suman for a share in the property which had come in the share of Kamla and Suman after the death of their father. Because of this reason at about 11:00AM on 15.03.2013, Rahul s/o Gajendra @ Bablu, his mother Smt Gangotri W/o Gajendra and their relative Daulat Ram and Madan Lal started quarrel with Suman and Kamla and Madan Lal and Daulat Ram exhorted Rahul and Gangotri to kill Kamla and Suman. Upon this goading, Rahul shot Suman with a country made pistol (Tamancha) and thereafter also tried to kill Kamla. Suman died on the spot while Kamla was brought to the police station. On the spot, Harish and many other villagers were present. The scribe of the complaint was one Devesh Kumar S/o Horilal.

7. After the First Information Report was lodged, the police investigated the crime and after collecting evidence, a charge sheet paper no. 53 Ka (Ex. Ka-4) was submitted under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. against Smt. Gangotri and Madan Lal. A separate charge sheet (paper no. 66 Ka (Ex. Ka-17) was submitted against Daulat Ram.

8. The accused Rahul S/o Gajendra was a minor, theref